Decision in SK Apple-Samsung Case Could Mold the Shape of Verdicts to Come

As a jury mulls the outcome of Apple's and Samsung's patent case in California, a South Korean court has issued a split decision in a similar case. While jury trials like the one going on in the U.S. tend to favor one party over the other, "I have little doubt if [jurors] figure out they have the option of doing what Korea did, that would be an easy out for them and they'd likely take it," said analyst Rob Enderle.

While a verdict has yet to be reached in the Apple vs.
Samsung court case going on in California, across the world a similar trial resulted in a split
decision. A court in South Korea on Friday ruled that Apple and
Samsung both infringed on each others' patents.

Judges noted that Samsung did not copy the look and
feel of the iPhone, and in fact the court in Seoul ordered a partial
ban on sales of iPads and some smartphones from both companies. The
ruling further found that Apple infringed on Samsung's wireless
technology, while the panel found that Samsung violated Apple
technology -- notably the "bounce-back" feature when scrolling on
touchscreen devices.

Both sides were ordered to pay limited damages ranging in the tens of thousands of dollar -- paltry sums for the two tech behemoths.

And while South Korea is not a big market for Apple -- and is a large one for Samsung, which is based in that country -- the verdict is being
closely watched as a possible preview of case unfolding in San Jose, Calif.

"Whether South Korea will be similar to California is the question
everyone is asking. That verdict was telling," said telecommunications
analyst Jeff Kagan. "Both sides infringed on the other's patents."

Apple and Samsung did not respond to our request for further details.

Home Field Advantage?

How does the fact that South Korea isn't much of an Apple market play
into this? And could the same sort of "home town" favoritism be repaid
in San Jose?

"There should be no home town favoritism with regards to the law,"
added Kagan. "The law should prevail. What actually happens, we'll
just have to wait and see. My guess is California will be similar to
South Korea. If they cannot settle this on their own, then both will
win and both will lose.

"When it's all done things will not really affect the customer," said
Kagan. "It's just moving chairs around on the deck of the world's
biggest cruise ships."

Conflict Resolution

The case in South Korea could just as likely be seen as a sideshow
rather than a portent of the bigger show in California. But it also
suggests that those in the court are upset that the parties have been
unable to find a way of resolving these matters other than bringing them to trial.

"In this case the split decision suggests frustration in that court,
which is shared by the ITC and California courts," said Rob Enderle,
principal analyst at the Enderle Group. "The Korean court showcased a
likely out because if the other courts find against both parties, they
will have to negotiate a settlement or effectively go out of business
in the U.S., which neither of them can afford."

"This is much more risky for Apple, though, as Samsung really doesn't do
many tablets, and it sells TVs and appliances, which would remain
untouched," he added.

However, the trial in the U.S. could be different, as it isn't left entirely up to judges to decide.

"Jury trials tend to favor one company over another, though, so unless
they get wind of the Korean move, this jury is more likely to find for
one company, and I think Apple is favored here," emphasized Enderle.
"But I have little doubt if they figure out they have the option of
doing what Korea did, that would be an easy out for them and they'd
likely take it."

Another question is whether any middle ground can be found by the two
companies. At present it doesn't appear likely, as both sides dig in
for what promises to be a lengthy war.

"The grandiose scorched earth strategies of embargoes and other
tactics brought about by these suits seem unlikely to be upheld," said
Chris Silva, industry analyst for mobile at the Altimeter Group.
"(This) is an outcome that allows progress to resume in mobile
technology and customers to get the best possible product. Anything
short of that is a step backward for mobile tech that will have
effects on technology for some time."

Innovation at Risk

Moreover, given that these two parties are going for an all-or-nothing
strategy, could they be willing to risk a so-called nuclear option? And
what does this mean for the future of mobile phone and tablet
development?

"The legal actions in question are a sideshow distracting players from
how they'll build the next mobile experience," Silva told
MacNewsWorld. "As more resources get caught up in legal battles, other
competitors would be smart to fill the innovation void it leaves."

"This is reminiscent of the resource-intensive battles pitched by RIM,
Suse and countless others in the past," he added. "Those cases were
predicated on protecting existing technology, while others focused on
business models and solutions that ultimately usurped these firms.
When companies choose a courtroom over the free market to protect
leadership, I'm forced to ask whether the plaintiff's better days of
innovation aren't behind them."